Anderszewski 2003

Performance		0-Rank	0-Score	1-Rank	1-Score	2-Rank	2-Score	3-Rank	3-Score	3R-Rank	3R-Score	4-Rank	4-Score	NED
Afanassiev 2001		18	0.74	65	0.00	18	0.07	14	0.31	68	0.04	46	0.11
Anderszewski 2003		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Ashkenazy 1981		40	0.67	44	0.00	14	0.07	24	0.26	26	0.26	28	0.26
Bacha 2000		48	0.66	36	0.00	50	0.04	55	0.04	23	0.22	53	0.09
Badura 1965		31	0.70	69	0.00	54	0.05	50	0.05	34	0.32	41	0.13
Barbosa 1983		71	0.54	41	0.00	51	0.05	51	0.05	21	0.24	45	0.11
Biret 1990		29	0.70	6	0.05	21	0.07	16	0.30	17	0.38	10	0.34
Blet 2003		57	0.61	81	0.00	74	0.04	67	0.04	50	0.06	73	0.05
Block 1995		36	0.69	24	0.01	11	0.09	13	0.32	7	0.42	7	0.37
Blumental 1952		69	0.55	54	0.00	57	0.04	61	0.04	73	0.04	84	0.04
Boshniakovich 1969		10	0.76	31	0.01	15	0.07	18	0.29	28	0.34	15	0.31
Brailowsky 1960		11	0.75	16	0.01	41	0.06	42	0.15	19	0.34	31	0.23
Bunin 1987		83	0.42	67	0.00	73	0.03	79	0.03	39	0.19	59	0.08
Bunin 1987b		84	0.40	76	0.00	72	0.03	74	0.03	40	0.18	62	0.07
Chiu 1999		39	0.67	9	0.03	13	0.08	34	0.22	16	0.30	26	0.26
Cohen 1997		85	0.39	62	0.00	87	0.03	72	0.03	52	0.05	86	0.04
Cortot 1951		55	0.62	63	0.00	63	0.04	65	0.04	46	0.05	87	0.04
Csalog 1996		86	0.33	68	0.00	79	0.03	82	0.03	49	0.05	79	0.04
Czerny 1949		25	0.72	34	0.00	45	0.07	46	0.07	41	0.19	42	0.12
Czerny 1990		6	0.77	17	0.01	24	0.06	21	0.26	26	0.26	29	0.26
Duchoud 2007		75	0.50	52	0.00	56	0.04	64	0.04	52	0.05	82	0.04
Ezaki 2006		1	0.83	3	0.11	2	0.22	2	0.50	4	0.56	2	0.53
Falvay 1989		72	0.52	25	0.01	84	0.03	85	0.03	48	0.09	71	0.05
Farrell 1958		46	0.67	82	0.00	40	0.05	41	0.16	31	0.27	34	0.21
Ferenczy 1958		54	0.64	42	0.00	71	0.04	60	0.04	36	0.11	66	0.07
Fliere 1977		4	0.81	7	0.05	5	0.17	3	0.48	25	0.27	8	0.36
Fou 1978		35	0.69	22	0.01	44	0.06	44	0.11	42	0.10	47	0.10
Francois 1956		52	0.64	32	0.01	58	0.04	62	0.04	42	0.11	68	0.07
Friedman 1923		12	0.75	23	0.01	34	0.08	19	0.27	35	0.33	18	0.30
Friedman 1923b		20	0.74	39	0.00	35	0.07	22	0.26	37	0.33	21	0.29
Friedman 1930		7	0.76	13	0.01	33	0.05	26	0.25	33	0.34	20	0.29
Garcia 2007		47	0.66	49	0.00	43	0.06	43	0.12	45	0.08	51	0.10
Garcia 2007b		62	0.59	84	0.00	53	0.06	49	0.06	54	0.05	75	0.05
Gierzod 1998		17	0.74	35	0.00	9	0.08	9	0.38	29	0.27	12	0.32
Gornostaeva 1994		9	0.76	4	0.10	4	0.13	5	0.45	1	0.61	3	0.52
Groot 1988		60	0.60	58	0.00	48	0.04	57	0.04	38	0.21	57	0.09
Harasiewicz 1955		3	0.82	10	0.02	6	0.17	4	0.46	14	0.40	6	0.43
Hatto 1993		26	0.70	27	0.01	37	0.07	30	0.24	23	0.30	25	0.27
Hatto 1997		22	0.73	70	0.00	38	0.10	28	0.24	26	0.30	24	0.27
Horowitz 1949		45	0.67	64	0.00	46	0.06	47	0.06	33	0.36	37	0.15
Indjic 1988		21	0.73	26	0.01	36	0.07	27	0.25	26	0.30	23	0.27
Kapell 1951		65	0.58	40	0.00	29	0.06	35	0.21	57	0.05	48	0.10
Kissin 1993		37	0.68	18	0.01	39	0.07	37	0.21	42	0.10	38	0.14
Kushner 1989		19	0.74	12	0.02	28	0.06	17	0.30	26	0.31	17	0.30
Luisada 1991		8	0.76	86	0.00	7	0.09	15	0.31	19	0.31	13	0.31
Lushtak 2004		50	0.65	55	0.00	59	0.04	56	0.04	64	0.04	83	0.04
Malcuzynski 1961		63	0.59	56	0.00	60	0.04	63	0.04	24	0.24	49	0.10
Magaloff 1978		56	0.62	60	0.00	75	0.03	78	0.03	50	0.06	77	0.04
Magin 1975		33	0.69	1	0.14	1	0.14	6	0.44	12	0.46	4	0.45
Michalowski 1933		61	0.60	66	0.00	69	0.02	87	0.02	65	0.05	89	0.03
Milkina 1970		5	0.77	30	0.01	10	0.08	7	0.42	10	0.49	5	0.45
Mohovich 1999		28	0.70	5	0.07	8	0.08	10	0.37	29	0.33	9	0.35
Moravec 1969		82	0.43	46	0.00	86	0.03	77	0.03	58	0.05	76	0.04
Morozova 2008		38	0.68	77	0.00	32	0.06	38	0.19	33	0.20	35	0.19
Neighaus 1950		13	0.75	59	0.00	30	0.06	23	0.26	32	0.21	33	0.23
Niedzielski 1931		49	0.65	53	0.00	52	0.04	54	0.04	42	0.13	61	0.07
Ohlsson 1999		16	0.75	14	0.01	12	0.08	12	0.33	26	0.30	14	0.31
Osinska 1989		2	0.82	2	0.14	3	0.21	1	0.61	4	0.61	1	0.61
Pachmann 1927		41	0.67	87	0.00	76	0.03	83	0.03	32	0.16	64	0.07
Paderewski 1930		51	0.64	15	0.01	64	0.04	68	0.04	40	0.11	63	0.07
Perlemuter 1992		34	0.69	61	0.00	47	0.08	45	0.08	69	0.04	69	0.06
Pierdomenico 2008		81	0.45	88	0.00	66	0.03	73	0.03	37	0.19	58	0.08
Poblocka 1999		59	0.61	19	0.01	16	0.07	36	0.21	42	0.13	36	0.17
Rabcewiczowa 1932		68	0.56	51	0.00	80	0.04	58	0.04	68	0.04	78	0.04
Rachmaninoff 1923		14	0.75	45	0.00	31	0.05	32	0.23	25	0.24	32	0.23
Rangell 2001		79	0.48	20	0.01	22	0.06	40	0.17	5	0.49	22	0.29
Richter 1976		67	0.56	37	0.00	68	0.03	75	0.03	38	0.28	55	0.09
Rosen 1989		27	0.70	29	0.01	19	0.07	31	0.24	26	0.27	30	0.25
Rosenthal 1930		70	0.55	8	0.03	55	0.06	48	0.06	20	0.27	40	0.13
Rosenthal 1931		77	0.50	47	0.00	77	0.03	81	0.03	35	0.16	65	0.07
Rosenthal 1931b		78	0.50	72	0.00	81	0.03	80	0.03	37	0.14	70	0.06
Rosenthal 1931c		80	0.45	38	0.00	83	0.05	52	0.05	51	0.05	74	0.05
Rosenthal 1931d		73	0.51	79	0.00	82	0.03	76	0.03	36	0.16	67	0.07
Rossi 2007		43	0.67	28	0.01	67	0.04	66	0.04	26	0.28	43	0.11
Rubinstein 1939		66	0.56	78	0.00	61	0.04	69	0.04	38	0.14	60	0.07
Rubinstein 1952		87	0.28	57	0.00	85	0.03	86	0.03	52	0.06	88	0.04
Rubinstein 1966		42	0.67	71	0.00	62	0.04	59	0.04	37	0.24	50	0.10
Schilhawsky 1960		53	0.64	50	0.00	49	0.05	53	0.05	63	0.04	80	0.04
Shebanova 2002		32	0.69	80	0.00	42	0.07	39	0.19	64	0.04	56	0.09
Smith 1975		23	0.72	11	0.02	23	0.06	20	0.26	17	0.32	19	0.29
Sokolov 2002		58	0.61	33	0.00	27	0.07	33	0.23	12	0.38	16	0.30
Sztompka 1959		15	0.75	43	0.00	20	0.10	8	0.39	35	0.17	27	0.26
Tomsic 1995		76	0.50	73	0.00	78	0.03	84	0.03	33	0.28	54	0.09
Uninsky 1932		64	0.58	48	0.00	65	0.03	71	0.03	65	0.05	81	0.04
Uninsky 1971		74	0.50	85	0.00	70	0.04	70	0.04	59	0.06	72	0.05
Wasowski 1980		24	0.72	21	0.01	17	0.06	11	0.33	14	0.32	11	0.32
Zak 1937		30	0.70	75	0.00	25	0.06	25	0.25	49	0.05	44	0.11
Zak 1951		44	0.67	74	0.00	26	0.06	29	0.24	45	0.07	39	0.13
Random 1		90	-0.23	83	0.00	89	0.01	89	0.01	29	0.20	85	0.04
Random 2		89	-0.15	90	0.00	90	0.01	90	0.01	60	0.03	90	0.02
Random 3		88	-0.09	89	0.00	88	0.02	88	0.02	11	0.46	52	0.10

Column descriptions

• Performance:
• 0-Rank/0-Score: 0-Score is equivalent to Pearson correlation of the entire data sequence between the reference performance and a test performance. 0-Rank is the sorting order of the 0-scores (highest score has a rank of 1).
• 1-Rank/1-Score: 1-Score is the area fraction covered by a particular performance in the scape plot (see image above). These values should not be taken literally, since they are sensitive to the Hatto Effect.
• 2-Rank/2-Score: 2-Score values are equivalent to 1-Score values with all higher-ranking performances removed before the calculation of the area of coverage in the scape is calculated. Improvment over the 1-Rank scores, but still somewhat sensitive to the Hatto Effect.
• 3-Rank/3-Score: Similar to 2-Rank calculations. The bottom 1/2 of the 2-rank performances are kept constant as a noise floor for the similarity measurement. Then one-by-one the top 1/2 of the 2-rank performances are superimposed with the noise-floor performances, and a 3-score is measured as the area covered in the scape. This measure is not sentisive to the Hatto Effect.
• 3R-Rank/3R-Score: Reverse 3-rank/3-scores. 3-rankings and scores are not symmetric (A->B values are different from B->A values). So this column represents similarity measures in the opposite direction.
• 4-Rank/4-Score: The geometric mean between 3-scores and 3R-scores. This column gives the best overall similarity ranking between the various performances (see color codes below).
• NED: Noise Equivalient Distance (not yet implemented)

Color codes for 3-rank listings:

• red = strongly similar performance to target
• orange = moderately similar performance
• yellow = weakly similar performance
• green = marginally similar/dissimilar performance
• white = dissimilar to target
• blue = false positive (has high 3-rank score but low 3R-rank score)

3-rank/scores are not symmetric, so the 3R-rank/score columns give the 3-rank/scores going in the opposite direction. More matches in the 3-rank column than in the 3R-rank column indicates an individualistic performance, while more matches in the 3R-rank column indicates a mainstream performance.

If a 3-rank and a 3R-rank are both marked as similar to each other, then there is a possible direct relation between the performances. If one is similar to the other but not in the reverse direction, then the similarity is more likely to be by chance (performers randomly chose a similar interpretation).